Curse

Snow Bunny · May 14, 2009, 02:07 AM // 02:07

They're not a mean-spirited company.

They're here to do business. If they didn't protect their copyrights, then they'd be losing an advantage they paid for. They don't exist to be nice - they exist to make money.

99% of the time a company's "lame" decision had profit as its reason.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Their stocks have dropped 90% within the past 2 years and even more since their partnership with YouTube ended, smart company alright... lemme tell ya.

I swear, the people here at Guru are just retarded. I'm done. Keep pulling useless shit out your ass, close the thread, do whatever, I don't even care anymore.

[DE] · May 14, 2009, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Obviously the downfall of the economy had nothing to do with that.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Do any of you even know what terms WMG wanted YouTube to impose..?

They wanted users to pay a monthly fee.
They wanted users to pay $10 per upload that contained WMG content.
They wanted huge royalties (more than cd sells) every time their content was viewed.
They wanted ads to buy the song/album embedded directly in the video.

We're not just talking music videos... We're talking about tutorials and any plethora of other videos that just happened to use at least 5 seconds of a WMG copyrighted artist's music as background music.

But, whatever... It's not worth it arguing with you idiots.

If you want to say that's morally sound, then you're just retards anyway.

Edit: That's beyond the fact that they're violating the DMCA. Cover songs, satires and parodies are considered Fair Use.

[DE] · May 14, 2009, 02:48 AM // 02:48

First you say WMG refused Googles offer... and now you're saying Google refused WMG's...

But assuming the WMG wanted YouTube to impose that list you posted above me, it's no wonder why Google refused it. The fact that Google takes down all of WMG's songs on youtube is just a legal necessity to avoid getting sued (as you mentioned).

But by your logic...
You're mad because Google is taking down WMG music
You think the stuff WMG wanted Youtube to impose was retarded
However...
For WMG stuff to stay on Youtube, Google would have had to accept the WMG offer

See the problem?
The only way you could be happy would be if Google left the WMG copyrighted songs up and got sued. And last time I checked, that's not something Google wants to happen.

Your flip flopping of sides and calling everyone idiots really isn't helping this thread.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 02:55 AM // 02:55

I'm not mad at Google for taking down WMG's music, they have to -- they're being sued.

http://news.cnet.com/Viacom-sues-Goo...html?tag=nw.10
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...utube-case.ars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...a.digitalmedia

Honestly, do you guys do any research whatsoever before offering piping in your opinions with an iron fist?

The morality issue is on WMG's side, not Google's. It's WMG's fault for having such ridiculous terms, it was basically extortion.

Winterclaw · May 14, 2009, 02:55 AM // 02:55

EA vaguely reminds me of someone from another forum who I didn't like very much.

Anyways, it's warner's music and they can do what they want with it.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 03:00 AM // 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

EA vaguely reminds me of someone from another forum who I didn't like very much.

The only other forum I visit is a cooking forum, but I'm glad I bring about such warm memories!

http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/index.php

[DE] · May 14, 2009, 03:12 AM // 03:12

WMG is allowed to try and impose whatever policies they see fit. The problem is that it's the users fault for using copyrighted material in the first place. However, WMG obviously can't sue every youtube'r who ever used their music. Instead WMG has to play this out on a larger scale with the result being suing Google. While the policies that WMG wanted to implement may be a bit ridiculous, it doesn't mean that they didn't have the right to do so. Google understands that YouTube is a bit sketchy when it comes to copyrighted material, so much so that they even set aside money to deal with lawsuits such as this one (according to one of your linked articles).

It's not so much mean-spirited or immorale as it is just something that needs to legally happen. WMG feels they got ripped off by YouTube and the only way they feel they could get the money they deserve is via the aforementioned policies or by suing Google. Nothing wrong with that.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 03:19 AM // 03:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

WMG is allowed to try and impose whatever policies they see fit. The problem is that it's the users fault for using copyrighted material in the first place. However, WMG obviously can't sue every youtube'r who ever used their music. Instead WMG has to play this out on a larger scale with the result being suing Google. While the policies that WMG wanted to implement may be a bit ridiculous, it doesn't mean that they didn't have the right to do so. Google understands that YouTube is a bit sketchy when it comes to copyrighted material, so much so that they even set aside money to deal with lawsuits such as this one (according to one of your linked articles).

It's not so much mean-spirited or immorale as it is just something that needs to legally happen. WMG feels they got ripped off by YouTube and the only way they feel they could get the money they deserve is via the aforementioned policies or by suing Google. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, I don't particularly agree they "deserve" the money in the first place... The money goes right in their pocket and not the artist, so its screwing everyone over except them.

Also, they actually did want to sue every user that uploaded their content and not only that, but anyone that viewed it!

Sourceeeeeee: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...a.digitalmedia

That's not WMG, but it still stands. You know they'd sue you if they could. They're dirty lil bastards like that.

[DE] · May 14, 2009, 03:28 AM // 03:28

You could debate that WMG is going at this problem the wrong way in terms of getting their money. However, I think it's fairly obvious that they do deserve money from Google. The money may not be going to the artists like many consumers would like it to, but at least it's going to WMG so that they can contract more artists or pay recurring artists more, so that they can continue to pump out music. I mean bands can't go to far without a huge ass company's contract, and WMG has to keep in business somehow (I assume you saw the stocks you linked). Obviously this whole situation won't work out the way Google or WMG want it to, but that's just tough shit.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 03:38 AM // 03:38

I'd prefer WMG just get boycotted and go out of business and more agreeable labels pick up the artists. Everyone wins.

Well... almost everyone.

Amazing_Bass · May 14, 2009, 03:46 AM // 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

You could debate that WMG is going at this problem the wrong way in terms of getting their money.

lol wait what was the debate? Oh shit, that was it?!?

Talking shit is fun but going back to legality doesn't make this much of a personal opinion thing.

My opinion. Rediculous. They may as well just ask youtube to throw in the towel.

Unlucky Slayer · May 14, 2009, 04:33 AM // 04:33

This is why we're not allowed to have nice things...

Stop it. =P

*closed*